April 21, 2011

Only those possible contenders who regularly appear on television — or have made bids before — are well known enough to elicit significant views from their fellow Republicans....

The poll would seem to reflect the late start to the Republican primary season, with many of the major likely candidates seeking to hoard their money and avoid making any missteps that they might have to live with later, when voters go to polls or caucus rooms.

Is this a bad thing for Republicans?

Arguably not: hoard their money and avoid making any missteps... as the article says. Why become conspicuous now and get knocked down? Why fight amongst yourselves? Why commit to positions when the economy and other matters are in continual flux? Why struggle to draw attention to yourself when Obama holds and controls the nation's attention? Let him make mistakes, let those mistakes accumulate, and decide how and when to use those mistakes against him?

[Donald] Trump has been getting considerable attention as a possibly strong contender, but just about as many Republicans view him favorably as view him unfavorably — 35 percent favorably and 32 percent unfavorably— and nearly 60 percent of Republicans interviewed said they did not believe he was a serious candidate. (Far more of all voters view him unfavorably — 46 percent — than view him favorably, 25 percent.)

Yes, exactly. Let Donald Trump attract attention for now. He'll go away later. Let him take all the shots no one serious wants to take responsibility for.

Looking for Jesus is always a mistake! Thinking you can mix your religious views into America's political mix, is usually a good way to reduce your popularity. But that's just my view. And, like everybody else, all we get is one vote.

Supposedly, in another brain teaser pollsters went out and asked people to name republican candidates. And, they couldn't.

Let alone, how after November's blowout, it was the voters who went home. And, Karl Rove who danced for the media (who once wanted to perp walk him ... so he doesn't mention this to them at all) ... And, the worst characters in the republican party took over "starring roles."

Donald Trump is gonna kick a few behinds! Joe Corsi, who boosted the Swift Vote veterans to recognition in 2004 ... is back in the swing of things, again.

Here's my bet. Stanley Ann Dunham at about the age of 17, started to have sex. And, one of her partners was a local black guy. Even at birth, Barry looked mulatto.

And, Stanley Ann Dunham was forced to leave Hawaii by her parents, as soon as she started to "show." She probably got sent to an unwed mothers home in the State of Washington.

How do you explain, today, what the racial attitudes were back in 1965?

Well, so far, it seems Ayers, who is the author of the "mysteries" of Obama's life ... made it ALL UP. Corsi will probably detail that the reality is different.

Less composed.

But it still shows ya the republican nomination of McCain was DISGRACEFUL!

You lose when you get a lot of people together, who think they can fool OTHERS! Republicans thought they could laugh up their sleeves, as democraps and independents chose their hand-picked candidate.

Well, you won with Dubya.

So tragedies happen.

Ross Perot came on the scene in 1992, because the republicans were praying at the bush tree ... which they thought had special fire.

Similarities between 1992 and now? Yes. And, no. On the "no" side is the fact that Donald Trump has been in the spotlight for a long time. And, he's not insane. Perot was new to "that" spotlight. And, he QUIT before election day. Pissing off a lot of voters.

Odds ahead? The republicans turn their convention into a shambles. Their pick goes to 3rd place in the general elections.

Trump TRUMPS. Which could shake up politics at its core. He's not beholding to promoting anybody.

I now find myself in this 60%, now that Thune has dropped out, and Christie says he won't run.

At the same time, I'm wildly enthusiastic for anyone the Republicans nominate, as long as it's a Republican. The press will try to do what they did last time and push someone both unelectable and liberal. Last time McCain; this time the clown Trump.

I'm surprised 40% could. At this point in the election cycle, we should only have fun candidates like Trump and Al Sharpton. Then FNC and MSNBC would never run out of things to wring their hands about.

I'm pretty sure Trump has no core bedrock principles that he holds to, so odds are he would tack before whatever political winds prevailed on that day. He's a smart man; but a smart man who has put no coherent thought into governing is quite possibly worse than a more average man with some skill in that area.

There are a number of people I'd get excited about if they ran...Paul Ryan, maybe Mitch Daniels, but so far...nope.

If Trump gets the republican nomination, I will hold my nose and vote him. I would vote for a bag of wet toast before I would vote for this miserable failure of a president.

Barring primary challenges on the left or third party runs, the right will come home to the republicans, regardless of who they nominate. The left will rally to Obama. It will always come down to the middle and which way they swing.

The problem is that people forget that now is the time to actively promote who you'd like to have on the ticket. Everybody's acting like they're just waiting to see who the nominee is. Support your favorite candidate now and then, if they don't win, you vote for the least bad option.

The NY Slimes thinks its 24/7 demonization of Sarah has taken her out of contention. Boy is it ever in for a surprise. Little does the Slimes know how marginal its pronouncements have become in bitter clinger country.

"Why commit to positions when the economy and other matters are in continual flux? "

Maybe I'm misreading con commenters here, but it seems like some cons would prefer less flux regarding commitment to positions.

OTOH, Romney is considered (by some) to be the frontrunner, and he surely subscribes to the flux philosophy.

But in reality, we already know what the con position will be: privatize gov and cut taxes for the job creators. And, it's also true that the cons (even Romney) are already speaking out quite regularly, about every issue of the day. They may not be extremely specific (e.g. Romney's support of the Ryan budget), but the eventual R nominee (like all candidates) will avoid being too pinned down all the way up to election day. Regardless of the winner, there are always details to fill-in after the election. For example, how many Rs ran on the particulars of the Ryan plan, including its specific Medicare modifications?

P.S.Maybe Althouse's advice about the candidates not committing to positions is actually what the voters are doing by not committing to the candidates. If we bother to look, we know where the candidates are coming from. Even the most slippery candidates can only tact so far from where the currently stand, otherwise they'll be inviting criticism that their word is worthless. And, even though it may not make headlines, the (unofficial) candidates are taking positions on issues as they come up every day.

It could be that the voters are not confident in their own knowledge (as is reasonable, so early, when folks aren't focusing yet) such that they don't have a fully formed idea about who would be best, regardless of what the candidates are doing and saying. Or, maybe some of these voters are waiting to follow the herd--presumably political momentum is a real phenomenon.

Chris Matthews is very enthusiastic about Donald Trump. He spends lots of time on him every night on Hardball. Not sure what he's saying, I keep the sound off, but for all the time devoted to Trump, Matthews must be a big supporter.

By the same token, I know he's also enthusiastic about Michele Bachmann.

Thank you Republicans! I'm sick and tired of the media driven permanent campaign. They want a horse race, and they want it now. They roll out prospective polling the moment an election ends, knowing the results are meaningless. As soon as a politician crosses the national radar, they start dunning him about his presidential ambitions. They'll make do with Trump till a real GOP candidate starts running in earnest, because they don't even remember how to do anything else.

The first victims of media downsizing are the specialists who really know their stuff. We are left with generalists who don't know enough about anything to do more than just "interpret" polls and substitute press releases for actual reporting.

It's cheap "news" which has corrupted everyday journalism almost beyond repair. We don't get savvy reporting on Libya; we get stories about how Libya will affect Obama's reelection prospects. Virtually everything is viewed through the distorted lens of partisan domestic politics. The blogosphere is not without sin here either! Political junkies just eat this stuff up.

I get the feeling the NYT is just frustrated they can't get started early demonizing and lying about our nominee. they tried hard to lie about Mccain's affair (That didn't happen). They just want to start throwing lies at the next guy.

That's probably why the left is actually getting worse towards Palin. They just don't have anywhere else to direct their energy. They realize that Obama is a miserable failure, and that the only way to help him is to demonize his opponent, but who is that?

HAHAHA

Trump is terrible. A Kelo supporter. The NYT has to treat him more kindly than they would treat a Republican because they don't want to implode his BS campaign. It's amusing to watch, but the GOP has several pretty great governors who just aren't taking the bait yet. Why should they? Obama has the spotlight, and it's showing him breaking his oath and cheating America.

I think that would work. I think they could beat Obama on the issue of fiscal responsibilty.

Ryan's Plan increases debt by 6 trillion for first 10 yrs, doesn't balance budget until 2040. Daniels was George Bush's budget director that blew the surplus from the Clinton Administration. I wonder what their argument would be?

This is bogus, Althouse. Until today, there was not a declared GOP candidate for the presidential election of 2012. I saw that poll over at Hot Air or some place and thought how remarkably silly it was reporting results on something that doesn't exist. We have one candidate, some guy named Johnson. That's it. I guess the media is trying to force Palin's hand.

Haha. Like the last fact I gave you that showed Walker's budget spends more money that the last budget? I'll take the word from the WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau before the word of Scott Walker any day of the week. I wonder what source you read that said Ryan's Plan actually saves any money?

I like Paul Ryan, but when did he finally get religion about fiscal discipline. He voted for Medicare Part D. McCain didn't. Ryan voted for the W. tax cuts. McCain didn't. Both McCain and Ryan voted for NCLB, which is pretty expensive.

John McCain is more fiscally conservative than Paul Ryan. It's not like we wouldn't have pretty big deficits without Medicare D and the Bush tax cuts, but they would be better, and Republicans would have the higher ground by far.

The mantra of the Paul Ryan Republicans seems to be, we're profligate borrowers and spenders but the other side wants to tax more, spend more, and borrow about the same as us.

When Paul Ryan introduces the bill to repeal Medicare Part D, then I will take him more seriously. (I would take him even more seriously if he admitted that, in addition to spending cuts, we absolutely have to raise tax rates on the middle class, the upper middle class, the rich, and the very rich to come close to closing the gaping defitics).

Until then, John McCain is way more fiscally conservative than Paul Ryan.

Of course, Mitch Daniels is the most fiscally conservative Republican with a record of accomplishment. Who knows if he'll run, but none of the other candidates even comes close to his record.

How can we increase spending if we're broke? Walker said originally his plan would cut spending by 6%, and it turns out it increases. Lied, and had opposite effect, blames you for it, and you defend. Like Stockholm Syndrome.

OK, so I did get it right. Now, let's talk about Wisconsin's strucural deficit. (We'll get to the national budget once we've established the State's situation). What did the WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau say about the deficit in the upcoming bienium (assuming the Walker budget passes)?

(The Crypto Jew)How can we increase spending if we're broke? Walker said originally his plan would cut spending by 6%, and it turns out it increases. Lied, and had opposite effect, blames you for it, and you defend. Like Stockholm Syndrome.

We can increase spending:1) If the increases are less than inflation; and/or2) Less than the rate of economic growth…In either case government spending is less in REAL terms, either in total (inflation) or as a percentage of GDP. Ryan’s original Road Map, covered Sosh’ Security, and Government spending INCREASED, as a % of GDP, for a decade or more…in order to accommodate the current and near-term retirees on Sosh’Security…it was Politically Necessary.

garage does one of those jump/shift bidding tacks that show Ann's right on the money. And the CBS name on any poll means it's less credible than Kos's house pollster Jensen with his PPP. Not to worry, the NYT sets up a straw man with fake polls and then knocks him down. Gotcha journalism that the fiscally-failing NYT specializes in.

If the fiscal situation is as dire as it seems and as Ryan and others proclaim, then you can't keep running huge deficits the next decade to politically accomodate seniors. The game will be over long before then.

Means test Social Security and Medicare and start now. Why should working class young people subsidize the retirement income and medical care for people who have way more wealth (and, in a lot of cases, income) than they do.

And it's not like the money will be there for them when it's their turn to collect.

Plus, we get to stick it back to the baby boomers. Maybe we should say that anyone who served or whose spouse served in Vietnam gets the full Medicare and SS benefits, just so the selfish assholes get the point. Maybe even explicitly cut off the draft dodgers as well.

Finding the GOP voter's favorite is a moving target. Huckabee is a smooth Southern Baptist pulpiteer that cannot hope to carry any northern or western states. Gingrich is hated by all who know him, and he has been around meeting people a long time. Palin is a winner, but is slimed by half the GOP as an uneducated woman who is only in it for money. Romney is a cardboard figure that will take any position any day. Daniels is too small. Pawlenty is unknown outside the midwest. Then Trump shows up ready to go out and kill Goliath for the GOP, and he is dissed everywhere for putting on a ego show. But soon the persnikety minds will see with great clarity as the economy crashes and dollars are suddenly are worth half as much as the month before. That is the day Trump the clown will be seen as the only man with a real plan to fight for us. Trump could easily use Sarah Palin as VP again, if she wants it.

What are Palin's specific proposals to close the deficit, ensure some measure of economic growth, bring the unemployment numbers down, and try and curb health care costs so as many people as possible get health insurance but that it won't eat up as much of their income as it now does.

Because to me, a winner is someone who puts forth some workable proposals. But I haven't heard any from her, or most of the other potential candidates.

And I think it's odd that you think Daniels is too short to be President but that Palin is not too ignorant to be President.

I think Obama has entrenched the point that no one is too ignorant to be President. I think Carter proved it, and W. reinforced it.

Whether the U.S. would be worse off with a second Obama term or a Palin first term is an interesting question. Palin, herself, has done quite well with Obama as POTUS, just like Obama did quite well with W. as POTUS. If Palin were POTUS, I think Gavin Newsom would benefit greatly.

Sadly Garage you remain firm in your conviction that Clinton left a surplus. Got to the US Treasury site and look at the yearly totals for federal debt. Hint: it increased every year of Clinton's term in office.

Second, Obama's budget never balances out so Ryan's is better. But its not good. A better way is to force a balanced budget in a set time, say 8 or 10 years. Otherwise it always gets kicked down the road...

They are both great. Daniels is very good at articulating the fiscal crisis, and so is Palin. Daniels has much more experience, and his results can be compared to the states that border is (he turned a sinking ship into a success), but Palin has a much more complete policy set, particular with respect to foreign policy.

It seems that Daniels might be more electable, but we don't really know that until we see how he performs in the primaries (if he even runs).

Frankly, I think fans of either Daniels or Palin should realize that the other is one of the good guys. Palin has some political liabilities, and so does Daniels, and both would lead this country with similar policies, albeit different levels of experience (for better of worse).

Let's not try to kneecap the other, if you're a fan of one. We need to keep an open mind about both of them, and the other candidate who actually have principles (no Romney, no Huckabee, no Trump of course). If Palin wins, she needs governors like Daniels, and if Daniels wins, he needs pundits like Palin (and to be more than a pundit).

(The Crypto Jew)If the fiscal situation is as dire as it seems and as Ryan and others proclaim, then you can't keep running huge deficits the next decade to politically accomodate seniors. The game will be over long before then.

Well then all we need is a bunch of suicidal politicians and/or a dictator……we’ll just “tell” all the Boomers, “No Sosh’Security for YOU!” Yes, and they’ll thank the politicians SO much that they’ll vote them out, UNLESS of course, your plan is have a Maximal Leader who is going to set things right and govern irrespective of the Will of the People. So really the ONLY solution is the Maximal Leader….because the Boomers ARE going to draw their Sosh’Security and Paul Ryan or Barak Obama are NOT going to stop them, UNLESS you have a plan for making one of them Maximal Leader.

So since a Maximal Leader isn’t a great thing, I suggest we try the Ryan Plan, it may not work, BUT it’s preferable to:1) Doing nothing;2) Having a Maximal Leader.

What if Obama's plan to close the budget deficit by raising taxes and controlling some spending is more effective than Ryan's. Ryan's relies on some spending cuts down the road and some pretty rosy assumptions about economic growth.

To me, both plans seem overly optimistic. That Obama's would double the debt over the next decade and Ryan's would not quite double the debt over the next decade is not comforting.

And, again, if things are as bad as they seem, we don't have 10 years.

Why doesn't Ryan propose repealing Medicare Part D at least? If the Republicans can't repeal their Part D fuck-up, how are they going to repeal Obamacare?

The president could tell the boomers, we're either means testing Social Security and Medicare for you and subsequent generations, or could tell the subsequent generations there will be no Social Security or Medicare for you and your taxes will double to pay down the debt we accumulted for welfare for people who didn't need it.

If the fiscal situation is as both the Dems and Republs acknowledge, these are the choices.

But if Paul Ryan thinks it's more important to keep his public sector job the next decade than to be honest with the voters, that is understandable. It's the same reason he voted for Medicare Part D eight years ago.

McCullough...LOL. Good points. Palin is not dumb at all, but she is a woman offering to do a man's job, and that turns off many GOP voters. I like Palin's courage to take on the POTUS job. She is not another middle age white guy saying "Look, I am not Obama". She is a woman running for the first woman President which has an appeal. I respect Daniel, but he is unknown nationally and will be seen standing 5 foot 4 inches of him next to Obama the strong forward type, handsome black man and his reasonable plans will disappear along with him. Trump has the fighter's mind, the guts and the known positive name recognition among all middle class folks. He is polished in people skills because he projects loyalty along with toughness. Stay tuned.

What if Obama's plan to close the budget deficit by raising taxes and controlling some spending is more effective than Ryan's. Ryan's relies on some spending cuts down the road and some pretty rosy assumptions about economic growth.

Because raising taxes TODAY is never matched by the “spending cuts” in the “out years.” So Obama’s plan is no more serious than any other Democratic Plan from the last 30 years. So by definition Obama’s plan can’t be better than Ryan’s. Further, the folks Obama proposes taxing, at “only” the Clinton level, well be paying for a Government that FAR EXCEEDS Clinton’s spending, so the “modest” tax increases will NOT close the gap, and even IF we tax the top 10% at 100% it won’t close the gap, so the only solution is that we ALL pay about 50% of our incomes to Obama. Again the Obama Plan will see tax increases, ultimately on all of us, but will never see any spending DECREASES.

To me, both plans seem overly optimistic. That Obama's would double the debt over the next decade and Ryan's would not quite double the debt over the next decade is not comforting.

One plan DEFINITELY sees us going the way of Greece, the other MAY avoid it…I can tell you which one I’m in favour of.

And, again, if things are as bad as they seem, we don't have 10 years. Why doesn't Ryan propose repealing Medicare Part D at least? If the Republicans can't repeal their Part D fuck-up, how are they going to repeal Obamacare?

Because it was a REPUBLICAN Plan? And it’s not unpopular? And to do so would require suicidal politicians, followed by its RE-IMPOSITION or a Maximal Leader!? What can be done is to change programs for people 55 and under. You CAN’T change a program that I am currently using or have based my near-term life objectives upon…that is politically INEXPEDIENT and immoral. My parents paid into Sosh’Security and to tell them, NOW, that we’re cutting their payments is a good way to be voted out and is wrong in the extreme. Their retirement was BASED on that “promise” and they played by the rules and changing the rules in mid-stream is wrong.

Do you parents need Social Security to live? If so, then under means testing they will get their full benefits.

If not, then why should younger people trying to start a family or who have less income and less wealth than your parents have to pay for their Social Security and pay higher taxes for the rest of their life?

It's not as if these younger people are going to get a benefit from SS either. Everyone who can afford to, should share the sacrifice. Unless the fiscal situation isn't as bad as it seems.

Also, how can people plan their life around a prescription drug program that's not even 10 years old?

If the Republicans can't repeal their Part D fuck-up, how are they going to repeal Obamacare?

By voting, I assume.

If you're asking how it could be possible to repeal ObamaCare without repealing Part D first, then I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Where's the dependency? You might as well ask how they could vote for the war in Iraq without voting to repeal farm subsidies. The two things are completely unconnected.

Now, I personally would be thrilled if they repealed Medicare part D... or Medicare in its entirety, for that matter. But there's no rational reason to make its repeal a priority over ObamaCare. ObamaCare is much more expensive, much more harmful, and much more unpopular -- so obviously it ought to go first.

(The Crypto Jew)Do you parents need Social Security to live? If so, then under means testing they will get their full benefits.“Means Testing” is:1) Nice if you make it for people 55 or 45 and YOUNGER…giving them 10-20 years to plan for the change;2) And you are willing to make Sosh’Security a Welfare Program….right now it’s “not” it’s a program for everyone, not just the “poor.”

(The Crypto Jew)It isn't a program for everyone, it is a program for old people. And it is already welfare, because their benefits are being paid for by current taxpayers.It IS a “program for everyone”, Rush Limbaugh or the Bag Lady on the street corner participate….as to welfare, that’s why I had so many “” marks….

I was thinking how can a party who claims it is serious about fiscal discipline allow Medicare D to remain on the books. You're right that you could repeal Obamacare without Part D (although since parts of Obamacare are dependent upon Part D, repealing Part D first would throw a wrench into Obamacare).

Obama claims that he has more fiscal discipline than the Republicans because he wants to restore the Clinton era tax rates on the top two (non-capital gain) income tax brackes, which will close the deficit. Also Obamacare imposes a 3% sur-tax on any income of above $200,000 for individual (and $250,000 for married) to raise money for Medicare.

These tax increases will pretty much pay for Obamacare, though Medicare will continue to drive the deficits.

Republicans didn't pay for Medicare Part D, they just stuffed another $100 billion or so onto the deficit.

It's hard to take Obama and the Dems or Ryan and the Republicans seriously. Maybe the Republicans, after repealing Obamacare, could start paying for their welfare programs, since they aren't serious about cutting them.

By welfare program, I just mean transfer payments. I should just say entitlement. I certainly don't mean that your parents or others who collect SS didn't work hard.

At this point, it's not about whether anyone deserves it or not, it's about whether we can afford it. Some seniors only get by on Social Security. They have no savings or no pension. Perhaps a fair number of them didn't save or work hard enough, I don't know.

But telling the next generation(s) you can plan your life around no SS or Medicare plus higher taxes for the next 50 years doesn't allow them to plan for anything.

(The Crypto Jew)Obama claims that he has more fiscal discipline than the Republicans because he wants to restore the Clinton era tax rates on the top two (non-capital gain) income tax brackes, which will close the deficit. Also Obamacare imposes a 3% sur-tax on any income of above $200,000 for individual (and $250,000 for married) to raise money for Medicare. Expenses TODAY are 33% greater than under Clinton…Clinton’s tax rate isn’t going to close this gap!!!

WV "Refable" a the apparent belief that Tax Increases will end the deficit/debt problem.

(The Crypto Jew)But telling the next generation(s) you can plan your life around no SS or Medicare plus higher taxes for the next 50 years doesn't allow them to plan for anything..

Which is DIFFERENT than telling CURRENT participants the program has changed…..what is it we are debating then? Neither Ryan NOR Obama tell anyone already on or about to draw Sosh’Security that their plan is changing…for the very same reason, the old folk vote! And because they vote ANY; plan has to take into account that current or near-term users will continue to operate under the current system…..unless you have a plan to be Maximal Leader.

(The Crypto Jew)I agree, it won't close the gap. It'll probably reduce it.

No it WON’T why can’t you grasp this? Tip O’Neill “promised” Reagan spending restraint….Tom Foley promised spending cuts to Bush ’41. All these promised cuts NEVER came…and under a plan proposed by Pelosi/Reid/Obama it’s more of the same….the tax increases ALWAYS, come but never the spending restraint.

You are proposing and following Einstein’s definition of “insanity”….for 30 years we keep hearing about tax increases AND spending cuts, but we only see one, but somehow this time, YOU BELIEVE, that the Democrat’s “Really” mean it this time? Why? Who drove up spending by 38% over the last 4 years? The VERY PEOPLE who “promise” they’ll reduce it, over the next 10-12, but FIRST let’s increase taxes, again…..Dood/doodette that’s INSANE.

The Republicans went on a spending spree during the W years and the Dems accelerated it. Now they propose to make relatively minor cuts.

I agree the Republicans are not as bad as Dems when it comes to fiscal discipline, but only by a very small and irrelevant margin.

How about we cut spending and increase taxes? That way the deficits will close. I just can't get excited by plans that are almost as bad as Obama's by people who blew open the deficits themselves. Perhaps Ryan and other Republicans would be more credible on fiscal issues if they didn't help heap so much onto the debt himself.

And liberals have a point: Ryan's plan adds a lot to the debt while cutting aid to the poor. If we're going to go broke anyway, we may as well let the poor have their benefits for the next 10 years anyway.

I was thinking how can a party who claims it is serious about fiscal discipline allow Medicare D to remain on the books.

The problem with your question lies with your use of the word "allow".

Republicans don't "allow" it to remain. It remains until a bill is passed, and signed, that repeals it. Passing such a bill would be much harder than passing a bill to repeal ObamaCare and would do *less* to fix our wretched financial situation. In other words, you're asking why the Republicans don't pick a much harder fight for much smaller gains.

Now, if Ryan was Emperor Ryanus Maxiumus the First, with the power of life and death over all budget items, and he refused to eliminate Medicare Part D? Then I would definitely say "good point" in response to accusations that he wasn't serious about fiscal discipline. :)

These tax increases will pretty much pay for Obamacare, though Medicare will continue to drive the deficits.

There is no rational reason to believe those tax increases will "pay for ObamaCare". Obama's using the same accounting tricks he used to get the program marked as "deficit neutral" the first time around.

With respect to Obamacare and Ryan's plans, I'm using their assumptions. I agree with you there are major gimmicks in Obamacare. There are major gimmicks in Ryan's plan as well, starting with the assumption on GDP growth and unemployment. But I don't think there's any way to say Obama's budget plan contains unrealistic assumptions but Ryan's has conservative assumptions.

At the end of the day, both their budget plans acknowledge high deficits. Neither displays any fiscal discipline or restraint. Ryan's might be marginally better.

As for Medicare Part D, I don't expect the people who voted for it to push for its repeal. But we can't afford it.

McCain voted against it and has shown a much greater committment to fiscal restraint than Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor or the other "conservatives." If the Republicans are serious about fiscal conservativism, perhaps McCain should be the nominee again.

"If the Republicans are serious about fiscal conservativism, perhaps McCain should be the nominee again."

He may cut back in some areas (assuming his cuts could get through the legislative process), but he may also make up for these cuts w/ endless war and empire building, where he can get things going w/o legislative input. It does seem like he'd be willing to keep piling on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and who knows where else.

You raise a very good point about McCain taking the fight for freedom to the four corners of the earth. In his defense, he at least served in the military and put his own life on the line, much like H.W. Bush, JFK and George Washington.

Since it looks like we're going to continue to intervene in all these places (with UN approval, of course), that's probably another reason McCain should be the nominee.

We can't afford Obamacare or Medicare Part D. I'm more than happy to see Obamacare repealed, if Ryan's the man to lead the charge, then great. After that, I will be happy to see Republicans like Ryan replaced with fiscal conservatives who repeal Medicare Part D and means test Medicare and Social Security.

But people who claim Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative ignore his record. He has been a borrow-and-spend Republican. Before he lectures the rest of us on his Road Map, perhaps he should review his voting record. It sucks.

I've heard it said by pundits on TV (can't remember who exactly) that without Medicare seniors won't be insurable.

BS. Medicare coverage *is* "insurance". All that has to be done is, like the law that says if you've held insurance under one job and switch you don't get docked for pre-existing conditions, seniors under Medicare will be considered to have been covered and when they go to get their own insurance, won't be docked for pre-existing conditions.

I think Mitch Daniels, like Obi-Wan, may be our only hope, but it's probably too late for that.

Actually our only hope is for a supermajority of one party who will be willing to committ political suicide and make the painful spending cuts and tax increases that are necessary to pull ourselves out of the gravity well that is national bankruptcy.

And by that I mean fucking cut everything, defense, Medicare, Medicaid SS to where the budget is balanced. Let's face it boys and girls, we've become Popeye Doyle in French Connection II so hooked on the heroin of government spending its going to take some mean fucking politicians to say no more and actually mean it because one way or another we're all going down if the spending isn't constrained.

ps. Yes I know garage, Obama has the magic money machine and can print more money. Here's $5 go get yourself a snowcone and go to the arcade.

Ah McCollogh oh the old “we’re doomed” act…well then why worry at ALL?

Well actually we are because the morons that run the government just believe we can continue to borrow our way to prosperity without any consequences.

The only way out of this is massive cuts in defense and Medicare and SS and increased taxes either through rate increases or removing deductions. GOP won't cut defense or raise taxes. The liberal morons will cheerfully cut defense, raise taxes and spend more on entitlements and unicorns.

I meant the U.S. will be solvent for 132 days longer under Ryan's 10-year plan than Obama's 10-year plan.

Given that the average security issue (the mix of Treasury bills, notes, bonds and TIPS) is a little more than 5 years, that means if (and when) interest rates go up when we roll over the debt we have (not to mention issue new debt), combined with the defaults on the horizon of California, New York, Illinois, and a half dozen major cities, we're probably looking at about 7 years before U.S. debt is junk status under the Obama plan and maybe 7 years and 132 days under Paul Ryan.

As for Medicare Part D, I don't expect the people who voted for it to push for its repeal.

You just don't get it, do you? Even if every Republican voted to repeal it, it still wouldn't get repealed. The Republicans would get a black eye for "slashing benefits for seniors" and the repeal bill would get voted down in the Senate after passing on a party-line vote in the House.

Your problem is that you're confusing "the Democrats were strongly against Part D" with "the Democrats want Part D gone". The reality is that they opposed Part D because it didn't give seniors enough. They don't want it eliminated -- they want it expanded, and funded through additional taxes on people who don't vote for Democrats. :)

But we can't afford it.

It is responsible for approximately three percent of this year's deficit. You're right that we can't afford it, but your obsession with it has no rational basis.

The only way out of this is massive cuts in defense and Medicare and SS and increased taxes either through rate increases or removing deductions. GOP won't cut defense or raise taxes. The liberal morons will cheerfully cut defense, raise taxes and spend more on entitlements and unicorns. So yeah, we're doomed.

Obama wants to trigger an automatic tax increase when spending rises. That's the equivalent of saying - I want to spend more money so my employer MUST give me a raise every time I want to spend more money. This is different from raising the debt ceiling - that's like telling the credit card company that they have to raise your credit limit.

I'd be able to afford everything on my wish list if I could trigger an automatic raise to cover my spending all the time.

I get it. What people don't get is repealing Obamacare (which is a long-shot at best) won't improve the deficit by much. Who cares if Republicans can repeal Obamacare (which is a long-shot) if the U.S. will be broke within 10 years anyway.

Republicans should be pushing for real spending cuts, not putting through marginally better plans. If they don't get the real spending cuts, then it won't matter anyway. Paul Ryan is a smart guy. He knows this, but won't act on it. Maybe he's more afraid of Grover Norquist and the AARP then a debt default that's 7-10 years away.

What people don't get is repealing Obamacare (which is a long-shot at best) won't improve the deficit by much.

It will improve it by more than repealing Part D would.

Ryan is trying to negotiate for a budget that improves things and has a chance in hell of passing. It has nothing to do with "fear of Grover Norquist", and everything to do with the fact that a bill that does the things you want has no chance of being passed in the first place, let alone signed. You aren't going to see big entitlement cuts when both the President and the Senate majority party claim that Medicare and Social Security do nothing to add to the deficit.

In any event, the further in debt we are when the crisis hits, the worse the crisis will be. So "who cares, we're doomed anyway" is a silly reason to avoid deficit reductions.

I think there's still time for someone who has yet to indicate an interest in this race, but that's just a hunch. I'm having trouble recalling a late entrant getting the nomination in the past 50 years.

Maybe the Republicans can nominate Obama. He's lowered taxes, increased spending, started a third war, added a new entitlement, kept Gitmo open, stepped up drone warfare, and brought the Republican party back from the dead. He's a more successful version of W.

The reason that 60% haven't found a candidate yet is that 60% still believe the lamestream media lies about Palin. The media are a very seductive thing. They are the liar and the crazy person who rips us off every day and 60% still believe them because they have been programmed to believe them since childhood. 60% would still buy the Brooklyn Bridge from the LS media.

There is all this talk of cutting spending and raising taxes to eliminate the deficit. The defecit is only a SYMPTOM of the problem--the REAL problem is the government spending too much g*ddamn money. Raising taxes only treats the symptom without addressing the underlying cause. Granted, sometimes treating the symptom is necessary (such as reducing a fever with Tylenol), but as long as you don't address the root cause (in the fever's case, the bug responsible), the symptom will just come back again.

The reason that 60% haven't found a candidate yet is that 60% still believe the lamestream media lies about Palin.

For fuck's sake...

What, exactly, makes you think people would be eager to elect Palin if it wasn't for the media? Palin has done exactly two things: (a) serve a few years as governor, during which she was neither better nor worse than most other red-state governors, and (b) talk.

You're making the *exact* mistake that Democrats made with Obama -- projecting all your hopes and dreams onto someone who is telling you what you want to hear. Do not assume that other Republicans' failure to do the same is due to "the lamestream media".

Palin needs to establish her small-government credentials first, and run for office second. Not the other way around.

What, exactly, makes you think people would be eager to elect Palin if it wasn't for the media? Palin has done exactly two things: (a) serve a few years as governor, during which she was neither better nor worse than most other red-state governors, and (b) talk.

You're making the *exact* mistake that Democrats made with Obama -- projecting all your hopes and dreams onto someone who is telling you what you want to hear.

Wrong. She has beaten back an entire nation of attackers while sticking to conservative principles - and, I'll add, her attackers in the media were organized, passionate, and inspired. At every juncture, she has proven she has a greater grasp of reality (She - not Charlie Gibson - knew what the Bush Doctrine was. She - not the snarky media - knew the significance of 1773, etc.) than the so-called "smart" people. She - unlike almost every media figure, whether political or celebrity; we can point to - has been unwavering in her principles and outlook:

She has not been "telling you what you want to hear" but been forced to reveal who she is - and she is a conservative.

I'll also add that I could see through Obama's bullshit from Day One, where, using the same political sense, Palin's authenticity has only grown on me. She's made not one misstep since she's come on the scene, but it is her detractors, repeating the same line of attack I saw on Bush, who are revealing themselves to still be as disingenuous as always. That - not a repeat of The Cult of Obama - is the lesson to be learned here:

Many of my fellow Americans are unwilling or unable to see and tell the truth.

And it's still as disgusting as during Bush - that's why I want to see you, too, defeated.

I am not looking for an economics major, or a foreign policy expert, or someone the Democrats or Independents or RINOs will be O.K. with. I am looking for a 100% American-in-her-bones conservative who will think about, and look out for, the principles of this nation and the will of it's people who also care about such things - I don't care what the freaks think, want, or are afraid of. That's what I want and what I'm going to get. Nothing more and nothing less. Give me that person and I am confident the rest will work itself out. We must get back to our true nature as a nation, not the Maharishi-inspired global warming-fearing, feminist pussy-whipped impostor that's being forced on us, which our enemies are having a wonderful time making a mockery of and gaining on.